Juvenile Justice And Criminal Responsibility
🔹 Juvenile Justice and Criminal Responsibility: Overview
1. Who is a Juvenile?
A juvenile is a person who is below 18 years of age.
According to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, juveniles are persons under 18 years.
Juveniles are treated differently from adults in criminal law due to their age and immaturity.
2. Juvenile Justice System
Deals with children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection.
Objective: Rehabilitation and social reintegration, not punishment.
Separate courts called Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB) are set up.
Focus on reformation and welfare rather than retribution.
3. Criminal Responsibility of Juveniles
Children below 7 years: No criminal responsibility (presumed incapable of committing crime).
Children between 7 to 12 years: Criminal responsibility depends on whether the child has sufficient capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the act (doctrine of doli incapax).
Children above 12 years but below 18: Generally tried under juvenile laws, but serious offenses can be tried as adults (under the 2015 Act).
4. Important Provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:
Introduced provisions for trying juveniles (16-18 years) as adults in heinous crimes after a preliminary assessment.
Special procedures and protections during inquiry and trial.
Institutional care in Observation Homes or Special Homes.
Rehabilitation measures post-release.
🔹 Detailed Case Laws on Juvenile Justice and Criminal Responsibility
⚖️ 1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
Facts:
Case involving death penalty but discusses juveniles and age as a factor in sentencing.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that juveniles below 18 cannot be sentenced to death penalty.
Juvenility is a mitigating factor in criminal law.
The Court emphasized the need to consider age and maturity before imposing harsh punishments.
Significance:
Established that juveniles deserve special treatment and cannot be given capital punishment.
Laid foundation for juvenile justice jurisprudence on sentencing.
⚖️ 2. In re: ‘B’ (Children) (1996) 1 SCC 745
Facts:
Concerned about the definition of juvenile and whether a child above 16 years could be tried as an adult.
Judgment:
The Court observed that the classification of juvenile is based strictly on the chronological age.
Emphasized the welfare of the child and the principle that juvenile justice system should focus on rehabilitation.
The Court cautioned against expanding the scope of adults tried as juveniles.
Significance:
Affirmed that age is crucial in deciding criminal responsibility.
Rehabilitation remains the core aim.
⚖️ 3. State of Maharashtra v. Sharad Sharma (2013) 3 SCC 185
Facts:
Juvenile (16 years) was involved in a serious crime.
Judgment:
Court reiterated the importance of doli incapax doctrine.
Held that just age alone does not confer criminal responsibility; the child’s capacity to understand the crime matters.
Recommended thorough inquiry before charging juveniles.
Significance:
Reinforced mental capacity assessment alongside chronological age.
Prevented mechanical prosecution of juveniles.
⚖️ 4. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Trial of 16-18 Year Olds
Landmark Amendment: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Post-2012 Delhi gang rape case, the Act was amended.
Juveniles between 16-18 years can be tried as adults for heinous offenses if the Board determines they have sufficient mental capacity.
This was challenged in several courts but upheld as a balancing act between protection and accountability.
⚖️ 5. Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 7 SCC 726
Facts:
The issue was the procedure for trying juveniles accused of heinous offenses.
Judgment:
Supreme Court laid down that the Juvenile Justice Board must conduct a preliminary assessment to decide if the juvenile has sufficient maturity to understand the nature of the crime.
If yes, juvenile can be tried as an adult; if not, treated under juvenile law.
The juvenile’s age verification must be meticulous.
Significance:
Clarified procedure for 16-18 year olds.
Ensured that trial as adult is an exception, not the rule.
⚖️ 6. Raju v. State of Karnataka (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1603
Facts:
A 17-year-old accused of a serious crime claimed juvenile status.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of medical and scientific evidence for age determination.
Stressed that the benefit of doubt on age must be given to the accused.
Also stressed that juveniles must be protected from harsh prison conditions.
Significance:
Emphasized scientific accuracy in age determination.
Reinforced rights of juveniles in the criminal justice system.
🔹 Summary Table
| Aspect | Legal Principle | Important Case |
|---|---|---|
| Age Limit for Juveniles | Below 18 years | In re: ‘B’ |
| No Death Penalty for Juveniles | Juveniles can't be sentenced to death | Bachan Singh |
| Mental Capacity (doli incapax) | Assess understanding before criminal liability | State of Maharashtra v. Sharad Sharma |
| Trying Juveniles as Adults (16-18 yrs) | Preliminary mental capacity assessment required | Santosh Kumar Bariyar |
| Age Verification | Scientific methods to be used | Raju v. State of Karnataka |
🔹 Key Takeaways:
The juvenile justice system prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment.
Age is the main factor, but mental capacity and understanding of the crime are equally important.
Special procedures protect juveniles from harsh treatment and stigmatization.
Recent legal developments allow for trying certain juveniles as adults in heinous crimes, but only after rigorous assessment.
The law mandates scientific methods for age verification to avoid wrongful prosecution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments